Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 2,001–2,025 of 2,284 studies in Brain scans and imaging (page 81 of 92) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Brain scans and imaging” covers

Brain scans and imaging — MRI, PET and other scans: what they show, how early, and how reliably.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

This study used path analysis to examine effects of cognitive activity and physical activity on cognitive functioning in older adults, through pathways involving beta-amyloid (Aβ) burden, cerebrovascular lesions, and neural injury within the brain regions affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The distinctive cortical uptake of the tracer (18)F-FDDNP (2-(1-{6-[(2-fluoroethyl(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene)malononitrile) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is believed to be because of its binding to both neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) and highly fibrillar senile plaques. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

β-Amyloid affects frontal and posterior brain networks in normal aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2010-10-18

Although deposition of β-amyloid (Aβ), a pathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD), has also been reported in cognitively intact older people, its influence on brain structure and cognition during normal aging remains controversial. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Declarative memory impairments in Alzheimer's disease and semantic dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. NeuroImage 2005-11-21

Semantic dementia (SD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) are both disorders in which early pathology affects the temporal lobe yet they produce distinct syndromes of declarative memory impairment-loss of established semantic knowledge with relatively preserved episodic memory in the former and the converse in the latter. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of neurodegenerative disorder, typically causing dementia along aging. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be conceptualized as a disconnection syndrome. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We examined whether the effect of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype on functional brain connectivity is modulated by gender in healthy older human adults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an age-dependent neurodegenerative disorder associated with progressive loss of cognitive function. 2-[ 18 F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has long been used to measure resting-state cerebral metabolic rates of glucose, a proxy for neuronal activity. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We used resting-state functional MRI to investigate spatial patterns of spontaneous brain activity in 22 healthy elderly subjects, as well as 16 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 16 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study indicates that disconnection precedes GM atrophy in the PCC, which is a critical area of the DMN, and supports the hypothesis that GM atrophy in specific regions of AD brains likely reflects a long term effect of brain disconnection. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Presymptomatic FAD individuals show widespread MRglc reductions consistent with the typical AD PET pattern in the relative absence of structural brain atrophy. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 30,580 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed